Is free speech trash in the Vaisnava tradition?

[Guest guest]

Vidvan Gauranga (das) JPS (Mayapur - IN)

21-Nov-99 04:23

Cc: India (Continental Committee) Open (Forum) [947]

Cc: DMW (Dharma of Men and Women) [3400]

 

---------------------------

> it's pity that you call such senseless writing "the couarge"! do you know

> that any uncivilised and ignorant person walking on a street can also

> speak the same way or even with more "courage" against Srila Prabhupada?

> is it courage? no, it's ignorence.

 

Regarding 'Topical Discussions', I have the following comments to make.

 

As we are from the Gaudiya Vaishnava Vedanta tradition, we are definitely

into free inquiry. We want to have our doubts dispelled, etc. We want to

know. In fact, Jiva Goswami and Baladeva Vidyabhusana in our line, have

dealt with various doubts in the area of philosophy and theology in their

writings. So there is nothing wrong with inquiry and doubts. But there is a

day-and-night difference between 'free speech' and 'free inquiry'. Let me

explain.

 

In free inquiry, we follow certain protocols in accordance with the

established traditions of knowledge-acquisition, particularly of that

educational institution that one happens to be a member of. Srila Prabhupada

wanted ISKCON to be an educational institution. So for those who are

seriously interested in clearing their doubts, yes, we must provide all

facilities PROVIDED they follow the protocols of knowledge-acquisition that

go along with such a free inquiry. You can't just say what you want. That's

not intellectual, that's pseudo-intellectual, especially to come to

conclusions if you don't have sufficient evidence to back up your points.

 

Let's take Dhyana Kunda's statements on Srila Prabhupada. She looks through

the VedaBase and finds contradictions between statement A made on date

aa-bbb-19cc at place X and statement B made on date dd-ee-19ff at place Y.

Then she has a doubt, "How is it possible for a consistent individual like

Srila Prabhupada to make such contradictions?" (At this point, I assume that

Dhyana Kunda and others do accept the authority of the Vedas and the Gaudiya

Vaishnava sampradaya, though I am not so sure, after having seen her comment

on Lord Caitanya's father.) Now what do we do with these contradictions?

 

An honest inquisitive Vaishnava (a follower of the Vaishnava intellectual

tradition) would consider doing the following in an attempt to objectively

analyze the issue at hand:

 

1. Examine the context of the conversation wherein statement A was made.

2. Examine the context of the conversation wherein statement B was made.

3. The above two can be done in the following ways:

(i) by interviewing individuals who were there with Srila Prabhupada at

the time statements A and B were made.

(ii) by checking the memoirs and other sources of biographical or

historical information from disciples of Srila Prabhupada who were present

surrounding those events

4. Many disciples of Srila Prabhupada state that Srila Prabhupada was a very

consistent individual. I have personally heard this from HH Jayapataka Swami

who had a lot of association with Srila Prabhupada. So I know that this is

more reliable than the interpretation of Dhyana Kunda who who didn't

associate with Srila Prabhupada.

5. If one does accept sastra and previous Gaudiya Vaishnava acharyas as a

source of authoritative objective knowledge, then there are statements by

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Padma Purana (Bhagavata-mahatmya), Caitanya

Mangala and Brahma-vaivarta Purana, which predict a great personality will

come who will take KC from Vrindavan/India to the foreign mleccha countries.

These logically point to Srila Prabhupada.

6. If one does accept point 5: Then you can take up the logic that Srila

Prabhupada being a maha-purusa, cannot be making contradictions in his

teachings.

7. Srila Prabhupada also made statements in mild or in jest, which he never

said are part of his teachings. By 'teachings', we mean the 'import of the

disciplic succession'.

 

So an inquisitive Vaishnava will not ridicule an individual, especially if

he happens to be a maha-purusa mentioned in the Veda, without sufficient

background research. If one does it, like Dhyana Kunda, then it is indeed

pseudo-intellectual and fit for the garbage.

 

Educational institutions have certainly regulations on how knowledge is

transmitted and how research works are done. In no university, will they

allow a student to criticize the professor, his knowlege, etc. publicly, No.

You have to SUBMIT to the process of knowledge-acquisition in the

university, once you have enrolled into one. If you don't follow the

protocols of that university, you have to hit the road, because your

behavior would be considered 'offensive'. If free speech were something so

valuable, then why is it that there is a distinction in a university between

who can teach in a class and who should listen and follow the university

rules as students?

 

This isn't blocking inquiry, but regulating how you go about it. ISKCON is a

Vaishnava educational institution (we learn from Srila Prabhupada and teach

based on it) and therefore these Vaishava protocols have to be followed.

 

Madhusudani Radha dd mentioned that Dhyana Kunda has a lot of integrity. If

that is the case, why is she shuttling her subjective opinion (which is not

backed up by sufficient research) which is definitely offensive according to

Vaishnava protocols in this educational institution ISKCON as if they were

objective facts?

 

I repeat: we are all for 'free inquiry' but not for mleccha-type 'free

speech'. We are interested in knowledge and some protocols for knowledge

acquisition need to be followed, since we are part of the Vaishnava

tradition.

 

Take for example, Arjuna in the Bhagavad-gita. In the Fourth Chapter of the

Gita, Lord Krsna says that He taught Vivasvan, the lord of the sun-planet,

teachings of devotional service. Arjuna becomes doubtful of this fact. But

watch how he brings this up his doubt. Note how he meticulously follows

Vaishnava/Vedic protocols:

 

arjuna uvaca

aparam bhavato janma

param janma vivasvatah

katham etad vijaniyam

tvam adau proktavan iti

 

arjunah uvaca--Arjuna said; aparam- junior; bhavatah--Your; janma--birth;

param--superior; janma--birth; vivasvatah--of the sun-god; katham--how;

etat--this; vijaniyam--shall I understand; tvam--You; adau--in the

beginning; proktavan--instructed; iti--thus.

 

"Arjuna said: The sun-god Vivasvan is senior by birth to You. How am I to

understand that in the beginning You instructed this science to him?"

 

Worthy of noting is his submissive wording: katham etad vijaniyam

(kathan--how; etat--this; vijaniyam--shall I understand) "How am I to

understand..."

 

With this wording, Arjuna makes it clear that he may not be able to

understand many things in life, especially about Krsna. Therefore, he asks,

"How do I understand...?" He doesn't assume certain pseudo-intellectual

conclusions: "Krsna contradicts reality", etc. He submissively asks Krsna

(pari-prasnena) how he can understand statements made by the Supreme Person.

 

*Within* Vaishnava intellectual traditions, there is a protocol of behavior

and reference to one's spiritual master or previous spiritual master,

founder-acharya, etc. Therefore I say that one can't make unsubmissive

statements about Srila Prabhupada, even if it is an attempt to understand

apparent contradictions in his statements.

 

Without making a proper and intelligent analysis of an individual, how can

he/she make remarks about the individual's integrity, motives, etc?

Especially if he/she makes such remarks in the name of free speech, *within*

the Vaishnava tradition, it is not accepted as honest inquiry or

non-egoistic intellectualism. That is why I consider Dhyana Kunda's

statements and Madhusudani Radha's policies regarding Topical Discussions

trash.

 

Your servant,

Vidvan Gauranga das

(Text COM:2795631) --------

[Guest guest]

>

>

> So an inquisitive Vaishnava will not ridicule an individual, especially if

> he happens to be a maha-purusa mentioned in the Veda, without sufficient

> background research. If one does it, like Dhyana Kunda, then it is indeed

> pseudo-intellectual and fit for the garbage.

 

Well, let's all hope for the sake of Vidvan Gauranga that Mother Dhyana Kunda

(

whose comments launched a 1000 posts) is not herself a maha-purusa, as it

certainly seems he hasn't done his homework as to the context of her remark.

 

Of course, luckily for him, we know she isn't, as

 

In other words, purusa means the enjoyer, and mahapurusa means the supreme

enjoyer, or the Supreme Personality of Godhead Sri Krsna.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 2.1.10

 

Of course, if VG thinks that Srila Prabhupada is a maha purusa, then what

can

we know of his (VG) consciousness?

 

So the guru has got two business. He has to make devotees and teach them the

principles of Bhagavad-gita. Therefore he's so dear. Not that he has become

God,

not Mayavadi philosophy. He's living entity, but because he acts very

confidentially on behalf of Krsna, therefore he's as good as God. This is

bhakti. Not the Mayavadi philosophy that guru has become God. Guru as God, not

become.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Room Conversation -- July 31, 1976, New Mayapur (French

farm)